Feleti Sevele argues: King can appoint PM, but the people should elect Ministers [1]
Thursday, June 1, 2000 - 10:00. Updated on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 - 16:30.
From Matangi Tonga Magazine Vol. 15, no. 2, June 2000.
Interview by Pesi Fonua
Dr Feleti Sevele, Tongatapu No.2 People’s Representative to the Tonga Legislative Assembly, is also a businessman and economist.
Good governance, transparancy, and accountability, in government, are issues that the industrialised Western nations and the United Nations are marshalling relentlessly.
Their belief that good governance is the answer to the world’s political, economic and social problems, is a conviction that can be compared to the fervour of Christian missionaries during the 19th and the 20th centuries, with their urge to take the Gospel to every corner of the world.
Today the issues of good governance are parcelled together with the movement for the development of a global economy, a concept which is regulated by the World Trade Organisation, and financed by the International Monetary Fund.
In essence, good governance is an environment that encourages openness, while transparency and accountability allows for open debate, discussion and constructive criticism on issues of public importance.
Good governance also relies on the notion that those who govern and those who are governed, must be equal participants in the decision-making process.
To throw some light on these issues Matangi Tonga interveiwed two people: Dr Feleti Sevele, and ‘Eseta Fusitu‘a, who heads the Government Information Unit (see separate article).
Pesi Fonua - Do you think we have the ideal political structure for good governance?
Feleti Sevele - I don’t think we have at the moment. Good governance is the exercise of public power and authority for the well being, and the benefit of all members of the society. As it is at the moment, I don’t think we have that. Part of that good governance is the ability to be transparent in the exercise of that power by those in authority and also to be accountable to the people.
Let’s take the Cabinet Ministers, for instance, the way things have been going and the way they are conducting their affairs in the executive. The ministers, in my view, are accountable to Privy Council and His Majesty. They are not, as in democratic countries, accountable to the House. They say they are, but they are not. If you look at the discussions and the motions that have been presented into the House—we made recommendations on issues, they are not accountable to it to the House, and therefore to the people. I mean, they may choose to implement it or not.
So to me we do not have a mechanism that ensures good governance, where accountability and transparency are effectively in operation.
In our case, we have a Constitution and a government that has been in place for over 100 years. The current push by the UN and the Western world for good governance, do you think it is part of our evolution or a new concept?
I think it was always there, the notion that you govern for the benefit of everybody, using public authority, power, public resources for the benefit of everybody, that has always been there, but was never always exercised. But in recent years, with the development and the growth of democracy through out the world, the involvement of the media, and greater exposure of government in their dealings and actions have forced them and people to scrutinise the way they govern the country. The other thing that more people are coming to realise is that they themselves must be part of the whole process of government. They are not just passive players, they must be active players and their wishes must be taken into account. It might be that this has been slow in coming into reality in developing countries but it has always been there.
One of the good things that I think is happening in Tonga, is this Privy Council decision, made when the Crown Prince was Prince Regent last year, to establish a mechanism, in the form of the Complaints Committee. To me it is a definite and a very good attempt to ensure that those in power exercise good governance for the benefit of all. Their actions are transparent so that everybody knows what they are doing and they are accountable for their actions and to the people.
You said that the Ministers are not accountable to the House, they are accountable to Privy Council and the King. To turn that around will be a very big task, what do you think will be one small step in the direction of making ministers accountable to the House?
I don’t think it is hard, given the recent statement by the Crown Prince Tupouto’a, I mean he was quite severe in his criticism of government bureaucracy, and some of the Ministers. The latest is by the former Prime Minister, Baron Vaea (see Matangi Tonga, January-April 2000). He was scathing in his criticism of the system in government and that some of the ministers should have taken action but did not. So the present system has been admitted by those two people to be rather faulty.
The way I will address it is this. The King can still retain his privilege, and the right to appoint his Prime Minister, as he sees fit, but all members of Parliament should be elected by the people. The Prime Minister then appoints his Ministers from these elected representatives. People say that this is taking away the power of the King, but I don’t see it as such, I see it as a sharing of power. History has shown that this is a process throughout the world, and to me that is the only way that we can make Ministers accountable, not only to His Majesty but to the people. They would also become accountable for their actions, because there is a mechanism that at the end of the term in parliament, they have to face the people. The people will then vote in terms of how they have accounted for their actions and accounted for the welfare of the people. After all it is the people resources, the budget and all, they have collected, and are utilising and distributing.
Under the current system, some ministries bypass the Prime Minister and go straight to the King, the Prime Minister feels that he has not got the power. This is where you have line authority. And also it prevents people saying, well the King is at fault because he appointed those ministers.
Let the King be there, let’s have a system whereby we protect the King from being criticised. And let’s face it, there have been some good Ministers and there are also ministers who are not up to it.
With regards to the nobles, whenever it is suggested that the people might elect the Nobles’ Representatives there is always ferocious debate, for and against.
I don’t see any problems with the people electing the noble’s representatives. Again the nobles will be accountable for their actions and accountable to the people.
The nobles have people who live in their various tofi‘as. They are in the House to govern for the people. But the way they are elected into the House is not. When you look at the way the power in the House is structured, it is disproportionate. Nine representatives of the people are elected by 99% of the people, nine representatives of the nobles are elected by a small group of 30 nobles.
If you look at what is happening, right now, for example, there are church conferences. The decisions there are made by the various representatives from various areas, different churches and different parishes, is not just the president and his close advisers. This is because people want to have a say in how they are being governed and how the resources of the church, the direction of the church, and the future are managed. I see no difference in that from government. People say this is a big change, it is not. The reason for having a government is to govern with integrity, transparency, and accountability for the benefit of all the members of that society.
There is a perception that the Tongan government is accountable to both the people through the House, and to the King through the Privy Council?
You can say that the House is accountable to the people, but in reality it is not, because the people have no say in the appointing of the ministers. The people have no way of asking every three years, have you done the job to the best of your ability, with integrity for the whole of Tonga or not?
We, the nine elected representatives of the people, have to face the people at the end of every three years. Now let’s look at the House, one of the primary functions of the House is to look at the budget, most of that money is collected from the people, in one form or another. The development budget comes from overseas aid, given to Tonga for the benefit of the people, and yet we have very little say on how that national cake is being distributed.
So, what you have been saying, there is no accountability?
Some ministers are good and they feel accountable and they are accountable to their actions, some ministers no, and in reality there is nothing there to make them accountable to the people. I give you an example. Last year in the House we asked for an increase in the state grants to church schools. Church colleges educate about two thirds of all secondary students in Tonga. They said that there was no money. We asked for another $50 dollars [per student] increase, and you are looking at about half a million. [Editor’s note: since then, an allocation has been made in this year’s budget for increase in the government’s contribution to church schools from $50 to $100 per student.]
There were requests from the people for the upgrading of the roads and primary schools and telephones, again the answer was no money. We asked also for the removal of the Port and Service Tax and duties from food. The requests were submitted by the People’s Representatives, and we were together. The answer was we can’t, we will look at it next year. We were asking for the whole of Tonga. Now, we have just had a government decision to give the whole Civil service, from bottom to top a 20 per cent increase of Cost of Living Adjustment, which will cost at least $6 million. I have seen the Cabinet submission and the Cabinet decision. One of the basic questions that should have been asked was, is this justified? Are we only looking at ourselves, those of us who are lucky enough to have a job? The top echelon of government ministers and senior civil servants, a lot of them were educated by taxpayers. They said in their submission that five per cent will come from resources in government by better savings, the rest, which I interpret, and I may be wrong here, but I think it is going to be met through increases in government charges, fees and services. This means the rest of Tonga is going to fund that increase, and to me that is not justified. The second point is we can’t afford it. They have been telling us in the House that they can’t do it. Now they are saying, Oh, we can do it. That to me is not being accountable for their actions. I admit that some Cost of Living Adjustment should be made, but I would limit that to the lower half of the civil service and certain sectors in the civil service, like doctors, nurses, teachers and people with special skills that can not be replaced. The public has never been consulted on that, on this decision which is to me a major decision, and in my view an irresponsible decision.
Why is it very difficult for us to deal with the public service issue? For a while the issue was the size of the public service, and a low productivity rate. Tonga has not yet dealt with that issue, now they have decided to increase their salaries?
Isn’t that a clear reflection of the decision-makers not being accountable for their actions and for the well being of the whole of Tonga?
That has been the argument, the government says it is concerned with the well being of the people, and that is why they don’t want to deal with the size of the public service. They don’t want to lay off people from their jobs because of all the hardship that may take place in the homes?
May be some of the decision makers also need to go, may be that is also a constraint, because if they say go, the others may turn around and say, you go too.
This is one of the things about accountability and transparency in government. They have been put there as decision-makers, who have the conviction, the courage, and the ability to make those hard decisions. That is why they are paid more than everybody else, that is why they have free vehicles, that is why they get all sorts of perks to make those difficult decisions in the interest of the whole of Tonga. That is why I am saying, if you have them elected, the people will judge them. If you can not make the decision for the welfare of everybody, you will not be elected.
Whenever we are talking about this new wave of the democratisation process, we reflect on how we escaped the colonisation by the western powers, and there is a new concern that this democratisation process is a form of neo-colonisation. Do you think that is a relevant argument?
It is nice to reminisce, it is nice to dream and to say this is history, but times are changing. Some of the Ministers and nobles have been paid huge sums of money for their jobs, in addition to their normal salaries and allowances from the House. I would ask them, why is it that those changes are easy to be accepted than the changes that are necessary? We have got to start looking at things we have to do properly. Let’s stop day dreaming, let’s stop looking back at history.
I mean, Baron Vaea himself in that interview with Matangi Tonga said that, we have got to shed some of these things of the past. Tonga, in my view, has a lot of potential. We may be short of natural resources, but we are not short of enterprising people, and that is something we should focus on, and that is why in the House last year I kept harping on about the need for us to look at our investment in our children. We have got talented people. I have travelled the Pacific for years, and I have been to all the Pacific Islands, and I see that Tongans are the most enterprising in the South Pacific. We need to nurture the talents, we need to start from the primary level. But our education system has fallen way behind what it should be.
Whenever we talk about change, some people think it will disrupt and damage the social structure, which we are accustomed to and treasure?
My response is that if you look at the number of Tongans who are now living overseas, if you look at the number of people who want to go overseas, isn’t that a clear indication of the changes in their outlook to life?
If you look at how the money economy has engrossed the whole society. As a test of whether the majority of Tongans really want the change in our parliamentary system or not, let’s have a referendum, and see where things really stand. I believe that at least 60 per cent of the people want to change. There is no point in discussing it, because there will always be the two sides. But we should know, and the King, in one of his interviews with Matangi Tonga, says that it is important that we should know what the views of the people are.
Whenever we talk about democratic change, we look at what is happening in our neighbouring Pacific island nations that have chosen to follow that road, they are all having a very difficult time?
They are different people. You look at how we change. Look at housing now, where is our traditional housing? Look at motor vehicles, look at education, travel. There has been so much change. Land used to be given away by the nobles. Can you get a piece of land today without paying? Land is only exchanged today after paying a huge amount of money. Let’s put it to the test. If the majority of the people say that they don’t want a change to our present parliamentary system, we can accept that. Let’s move on. If they say we need to change, let’s go along with that, then let’s do it on a bipartisan basis, people and government to be involved in the discussion, in the formulation.
Tonga is alone in the region in its system of government, an even if we have a referendum and the majority fails to support the kind of change you are talking about. How do you think we will manage in a world, which is becoming more unified in economics and systems of government?
I don’t think the majority would like to leave things as they are, so let’s do it altogether.
We have a monarchical system and a King that we all love, and a system, which we want to retain, and a nobility, which we want to maintain. But in term of controlling and running the affairs of government, in terms of parliament that is another issue, and I have no doubt that changes will come. I hope it is sooner, because the longer it is delayed the more we are losing out on a lot of things that our children should have, such as a proper education, proper preparation for the future and all that. We have increasing poverty and increasing unemployment. I have never seen over the past five years any serious attempt by government to increase employment. You ask the Ministers about the unemployment figures, they don’t know. The extent of children leaving school before they complete the necessary secondary education is increasing, and that is a major concern for me, and it should be too for all the decision-makers. If we have an uneducated large section of the population, we will have a large poor section of the population and there will be difficulties.
The change that you are talking about, how soon do you think it will take place?
As the Greek philosophers once said, there is only one constant in life and that is change; the sooner, the better. Let’s discuss it in a rational, and a friendly way.
So really the change that you are talking about is the components of the house, but not the social structure, of the King and his nobility?
Yes, because that will also underpin the structure in government, in Cabinet and all. One thing we want to do, is for the People’s Representatives to have a say in the formulation of our annual budget. There are a lot of people out there in the Private Sector, and the Private Sector fuels government, that have never been asked. The talent is out there. We have a parliamentary system that can link all these other things together. Look at Australia and New Zealand, they have a Public Accounts Committee, and they look at all those things and discuss them.
The primary concern is to have a system that will get maximum potential, benefits for all the people. Not change for the sake of change. We have a good nation, but it could be much better, but we have got to make the changes now.
A two per cent growth in the economy has been reported, as a growth in the GDP. Do you think there was a real growth in the Tongan economy last year?
No. If you look at a news release that came out, either a Cabinet Decision or a submission to Cabinet, there was a reference to a two per cent growth in GDP, and they said that it came out of the Reserve Bank report. It did, but it was not their figure, they pulled it out from the Budget statement of the Minister of Finance to the House last year, which we disputed. Even between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour and Commerce in their respective reports, one is saying that the economy declined and the other said that it has grown two per cent. I do not believe that figure, and I have to do some more work on it.
Housing loans is a good indicator of growth, and between 1998 and 1999 there was a decline in lending for housing. If you try and look at other indicators, there are no new big projects around, no huge increase in exports. To me that figure is not correct, the economy has either declined or is stationary.
You have pointed out that figures from two Cabinet Ministers do not match. Recently, it has become clear that there is no unity within Cabinet, and some have said it is just the nature of Tongan politics where there will always be in-fighting and differences?
But who suffers in the end? Going back to the difference in figures, I don’t know why. They are failing in their duty to the people to tell us exactly where we are, and the reasons for some of the decisions and actions they have taken—that is the least a public officer should do.
The accepted notion is that the Ministers are accountable to the King?
Sometimes I wonder. It is not only the ministers in terms of accountability, the House is also failing in that respect as well. As a Member of Parliament, I am in my first year, and to me the House is at great fault in not being accountable for their actions. The finances of the House, as far as I know, have been audited only once. We supposed to receive a financial report in the House, but we did not get it last year and we, as responsible members of the society,should be the first to be accountable.
As a People’s Representative, and I know you have been talking about a referendum, but what is one specific area that you would focus on to bring about accountability into the House?
I would like to put forward a question on referendum, let’s find out exactly and in a proper and transparent way, what the people want. And having got that, then we can make decision accordingly. The present system of financial management and financial distribution and payment of parliamentary votes is most unsatisfactory. We should have an independent auditor for the books of the House every year.
Looking at our economy, you are in the export industry and the retailing business. How should we go about boosting our economy? Some have suggested government take a big loan to make capital available to the people.
Why do we have to make a big loan, while we have $30 million to $40 million in the Tongan Trust Fund? Was it not the purpose for the sale of Passports to get money to help the economy of Tonga? People who advocate borrowing, in my view should have their heads examined. We have got funds there now, let’s utilise them. Those who advocate borrowing, are some who have borrowed and have not succeeded. Government loans must be repaid by everybody in the end, why mortgage our children, and our children’s children? If we have millions in the Trust Fund why not use it?
The state of our economy, are we still in recession, or are we slowly coming out of it?
I think we are stagnating at the moment. I would like to see government saying to people let’s sit down, let’s talk, what is there that we need to do? As an exporter over the past ten years, I tell you, doing business in Tonga is b….. difficult. We have fought all the b….. way for some of the things that we want. You look at 1994, when the squash was going well, and the government brought in this stupid law [enforcing an export quota system] and then we have squash that was left here to rot, worth several million US. Things were going well but the Ministers in government came in and stuffed it up, and after that it was never enforce again. It was a Private Sector initiative [to let the market dictate and we supply the demand]. There are people out there who are prepared to work and to invest, but they need direction, support and pushing.
The 20 per cent Cost of Living Allowance that has been introduced, how do you think are they going to finance it?
The bulk of it will come from increased charges and fees. During this hard time the poor people will suffer the most. It is one of the most incredible decisions that I have seen, and one of the most ill considered. I had a look at the submission and I was staggered. One of their arguments is that they have lost the purchasing power of their salaries. If you look at their salaries, their total package, which comes from the tax-payers, some of the Ministers have increased theirs by over 1000%. They have got into Boards, fees from the House, basic salaries, meeting fees, daily allowances, savings from per diems, free vehicles, and some of them have subsidised housing. Also look at the level one people whom I believe were involved in this, they are on boards. Let’s say the Development Bank, for example, on the board you get $3,000-4,000 a year in fees, plus meeting allowances. How many boards are they on?
Prior to 1989, I remember when Tuita Acting Deputy PM vehicles were only to be used for official purposes. Now they can be used for personal travel. Look at the cost of a vehicle, the petrol, maintenance. Then last year out of the tax payers they funded their contribution to the superannuation, the whole 10 per cent was from the tax payers money. It was supposed to be contributed but they had a COLA of five per cent to pay for their contribution. You cannot justify what they are saying, when they say they lost their purchasing power.
Will last year’s cut on the budget remain?
The budget is frozen, but more money will go to salaries and even less for the actual services, maintenance of government equipment, buildings, etc., and that means a decline in the quality of the service.
With privatisation, government sources of revenues are declining, and government is depending more on the Private Sector and the tax-payers. Isn’t it easier then for the Private Sector and the tax-payers to negotiate with government on equal terms, because they are the money suppliers?
You can’t, because they have the authority, they make laws and they can increase charges, duties, taxes, the lot. They have the authority, all that embracing power. I know what will happen when they run out of money, they borrow or they increase the charges and reduce the services.
The privatising program has also cut the source of revenue for government, the privatising of the former Commodities Board and telecommunications, for example.
They have been corporatised. Tonga Timber was one, and who is running it but some of the Ministers and civil servant— and they don’t have a clue on how to run business. Now if they are running those enterprises and they are collapsing, is that an indication of their ability to run things?
The Tonga Development Bank is another example, they have been writing off millions, but the commercial banks are making money. To me it is not because some are running away, it is just bad management, and you have to start with the Board. And that is why I am not in favour myself of ministers getting onto Boards, because they don’t know how to run those things.
Why are these businesses failing, considering that they have the authority and the capital to work with?
That is just the nature of public bodies, but moreso in Tonga where the skills are limited, and checks and balances are largely absent. There is no accountability mechanism there, there is nothing that says if you fail, you are out. That is what should be done.